The caption makes claim of a comparison but makes no mention of omitting recent data which does differ between the two versions (see fig 6). Additionally the plot start is 1749 as the monthly time series but the data plotted is the annual time series not the monthly.

Figure 3, reproduction of the dubious work using WDC-SILO data except showing all the data, less the very early part as above.

The plotting format looks the same as used by SILO and the captions attributes SILO.

Figure 4, Example plot from SILO, same style, same font, no missing tick.

Figure 5, detail from the plot showing the figures for computation of end date. The missing ticks implies post plotting removal of marks via image editing software. I’m surprising the regular X-axis numbering does not included 2000. Competent plot software would not omit a tick. If the original was postscript, rather likely, that could have been edited. Perhaps there is a sensible explanation short of someone deliberately removing marks, tell me.

The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.

That is classic misdirection, doesn’t sit well with being caught red handed trying sleight of hand. A far more important question is the degree of correlation or a functional connection, omitted. The temperature records used by these people exhibit recently either a cessation or great muting of temperature rise. This correlates with changes solar cycle 23 and 24 which the author(s) hid. I consider this misconduct but that is just my opinion, the readers will have to decide for themselves.

An obvious question: what is the difference between the SSN series MK1 and MK2?

Figure 6, the difference between datasets MK1 and MK2 over the monthly data time span.

Excluding recent this is simple span change but the basis for the values eludes me. One and two thirds is reciprocal 0.6, the claimed reference change. Given a new number series any particular reference is as good as any other so all we are interested in is the relative values between the scale factors. Why then sqr root 2?

What is the reason for the rectangular section? There is general reference to poor data prior to that and details works done after then tending to constrain reasonable change. (such as Wilson (1998))

I don’t understand why SILO have changed their own published data by so much, what was wrong with their work?

Any cross checks on whether solar activity might do more than some seem to think?

How about measured directly on earth instead of what we see by light taking place millions of miles away?

I bet they made the plot and exported it as some kind of vector image. Then they put it into illustrator/whatever to add captions (and possibly decided to cut out the rightmost data?). Anyway, at some point they deleted some part of the original plot image which was grouped with that tick mark. I have had similar issues in the past.

Now they wouldn’t put in these errors so that they correct them later. With later corrections that may alter the current (unimaged) levels with new ‘errors’ that would require later adjustment ‘recalibration’, then later still ‘recalibrate’ the past record, then still later ‘recalibrate’…

Or maybe I’m just being a little too cynical, or is it that this has all been done before — hockey stick distractions while agencies recalibrate adjust(!) the temperature data.
This is how the game of ‘settled science’ is being played, no?

As Nir Shaviv says The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is!
IMO it is lined-up to become ever less relevant.

At the end of the day V2 is better than V1. But they could have done better. I am far from convinced for the 1840 to 1870 changes (LS told me they used a paper on spot area to show Wolf was wrong?) and it would have been better if they adjusted the post 1947 record down by 20% and not the 15% and other values after 1981. The Waldmeier Jump after 1947 does need to come out.

‘The point is that it hasn’t taken long for the climate change lobby to jump on the bandwagon in order to dismiss activity on the Sun as affecting global temperatures. This is of course total nonsense as the solar wind can pump lots of heat and energy into the atmosphere during CME events.’http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/sun-spot-numbering.htm

The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).

You have it backwards Salvatore. Waldmeier in 1947 introduced a new counting system for the SIDC international sunspot number, he rated spots according to size so that a spot could have a value as high as 5 instead of the old single value used by all in the past. This artificially rose the sunspot record from 1947 to 2015 by around 20%. We are living in a dream world persisting with this method.

The Waldmeier Jump is one of the main reasons for the Laymans Sunspot Count and it is good that it is now somewhat removed in V2. Like I said V2 could be done better and I would prefer they continue the V1 record in the interim alongside V2.

Salvatore, area is one metric, and then you can measure umbra strength within that area to get another value. That all makes sense and is one of the questions Waldmeier struggled with. But the sunspot record is about a standard over a 400 year time frame that began with a method not considering area and umbra.

So it is important to continue the homogeneous record and not introduce new standards…start with a plan and continue that plan…otherwise set up a new metric outside of the sunspot number. You can’t have it both ways..

At times of regime shift we sometimes have to confront fence-sitters with:
Are you part of the problem or part of the solution??

People know the surface of the Earth is NOT uniform.
They KNOW there’s differential heat capacity (don’t forget about latent!! hint: ICE!!).

Example:
Heat a chunk of ice in one hemisphere.
Heat a chunk of land or water in the other.
Measure the surface temperature response.
LO & BEHOLD!! God hath delivered miraculous DIFFERENTIAL response. OMG! from the “it’s simpler than we thought!” category. …now catch your breath from that simple revelation.

Dan, it would be helpful if you would decide to be explicit about the SCL, SCD complex pair necessarily pacing multidecadal ocean oscillations. (Mathematically there’s no other possiblity, you’ll know IF you understand the basic geometry.)

…Of course I may be missing something: Perhaps you’re prepared to argue for violation of one or both of the laws of large numbers &/or conservation of angular momentum?? …but I’m guessing not, in which case it’s just a matter of if/when you see the light (explicitly).

…and not to pass up this opportunity to have some fun:
Onlooking agents of the department of commerce: Yes I know (as has been explained to me patiently on more than one occasion) that there has to be a long-run strategy for eliminating the US debt to China …but let me just clarify once again that this can’t be it because it conclusively clarifies a fatal corruption of justice.

Dan: Give it some thought. The main cost of acknowledging is you’ll be viciously harassed (by deception agents (some work undercover including here)) for daring to state 1+1=2.

If you decide to play it socially & politically safe by not acknowledging sun-climate 1+1=2, we’ll be able to prove and acknowledge your (disappointing) contribution to climate injustice.

I hope you’ll make the wise, enlightened choice Dan

As my ancestors say in French:Bon Courage!

P.S. I’m recommending that you be paid a very generous stipend if you pursue the arduous ethical high-road (meaning not being scared to state sun-climate 1+1=2, specifically the simple geometry of the SCL, SCD complex pair …and the consequent regional aberrations from sunspot integral).

…and the rate of change of SCD is the blue curve here (isostatic adjustment & mantle flow; orthogonal in time to sea level change):

In the complex plane, those 3 curves are just a single curve describing the multivariate geophysical wave that’s necessarily descriptive of the beats of all known AND UNKNOWN terrestrial cycles. It literally can be no other way. We’re in the realm of GEOMETRIC PROOF of climate injustice and all that remains to be observed and documented is the nature & duration of mainstream administrative delay.

It is not a matter of buying a climate, it is a matter of anticipating the climate going forward and adapting. Too bad the politicians are ‘adapting’ in exactly the wrong manner. Make you wonder if they are really that stupid or if they know something they are not about to tell the ‘Great Unwashed’

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren —

Now why would they be writing that in textbooks just as Shackelton found proof of the Milankovitch cycles. Just as Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon. And when global cooling was already the main concern at a conference of the World Meteorological Organization and Unesco in 1961, a decade before.

The near perfect (R*2 = 0.97+) match between calculated and measured average global temperatures since before 1900 demonstrates that all except less then 3% of relevant factors are accounted for. The only input to the equation is annual average daily sunspot number. Because no effect of SCL, SCD on ocean cycle pacing is explicitly accounted for any effect that it might have is either accounted for implicitly and/or must find room in the unexplained less-than 3%.

Apparently all (or at least very nearly all) average global temperatures result from natural phenomena. Useful effort would be to determine what causes the net of ocean cycles and the solar cycles to be as observed.